An accepted resignation from prior service does not trigger statutory disqualification for Juvenile Justice Board membership.

The petitioner was selected as a Social Worker Member of the Juvenile Justice Board, Patna, and joined on 23 December 2023 for a three-year term.

Before that appointment, he had worked as a case worker in Buxar.

The Director cancelled his Board membership on 5 May 2025, alleging that he had been removed from his earlier service.

The petitioner challenged that decision and, after his representation was rejected by the Secretary on 24 September 2025, brought the present writ petition.

He maintained that he had resigned from the case-worker post on 23 December 2023.

The counter-affidavit of Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 stated that his contract was terminated after his resignation and that the termination would not be treated as an adverse comment on his service.

The Court had earlier directed the authority to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass a reasoned order.

1. Whether the petitioner was ineligible to serve as a Juvenile Justice Board member under Section 4(4)(iii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, on the ground that he had been removed or dismissed from his earlier service.

2. Whether the cancellation of his Board membership and the subsequent rejection of his representation were arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

Section 4(4)(iii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, makes a person ineligible for selection as a Board member if that person “has been removed or dismissed” from service of the Central or State Government, or a government-owned or controlled undertaking or corporation.

The Court applied the provision to the established circumstances of the petitioner’s departure from his former post; it cited no precedent.

The State relied on the petitioner’s alleged removal from his earlier post to justify cancellation under Section 4(4)(iii), and pointed to the show-cause notice and the opportunity to reply.

The Court, however, considered the material in the counter-affidavit of Respondent Nos. 7 and 8, which recorded that the petitioner’s contract was terminated after his resignation and that the termination would not be treated as an adverse comment on his service.

On that record, the Court found that the petitioner had resigned rather than been removed or dismissed.

It therefore held that the Director’s reliance on the statutory disqualification was contrary to the record and arbitrary.

It restored the petitioner to the post of Member of the Juvenile Justice Board, Patna, for the balance of his term, until the end of December 2026, and allowed the writ petition to that extent.